It's also a massive implementation of cultural relativism. America typically is extremely arrogant in international affairs, applying its standards and judgements to the rest of the world.
For example, in India, the average worker lives off of $12-$13 per MONTH. This is well below what America considers to be a "poverty" level. Yet the country's population of 1.2 billion continues to grow.
Not to mention cotton is free in India, 10 pounds of rice can be bought for $1, and their cultural and spiritual beliefs find no need for materialism (espoused best in America I think by Wal-Mart and other discount retailers).
It's all a question of standards and culture. People in India don't think they're poor, they enjoy living. People in America, with all of their wealth and "development", are never satisfied.
Intriguing.
We think we have it best, but this is a nation NOT built upon ideals of liberty, but of property.
Also intriguing.
But we have the right to be the judge and jury over other nations?
One minor detail, though. If it will take 300 years to index knowledge currently present, then what of knowledge to be produced in the next 300 years? I mean, not even everything from the year 2004 has been indexed yet. Knowledge is infinite, therefore cannot be completely indexed--it would be best for us to interpret the "300 years" quote as a sort of geeky joke.
As an indepedent recording artist, this is an exceptionally valid point. Mastering and mixing does more to make a mix rich than throwing in a $2000 microphone. A less than stellar musician recorded using the world's greatest mic will still sound less than stellar, just as a prodigy will sound like a prodigy recorded with a Shure SM-57. With modern digital technologies studio environments can be replicated in one's own home, or in my case, dorm room. I recorded my album using a $200 drum mic set from CAD and mastered it myself in Logic Express (and note, 96khz input through my Presonus Firepod--total cost of setup: $1200) and it came out sounding better than many studios available.
It's similar to the lawsuits following the Digital Millenium Act, in which the FCC was planning to put royalty fees on internet radio. When they realised that this would eliminate internet radio as a feasible form of communications, in conjunction with the fact that airwave radio stations do not have to pay royalties, it was eliminated from the table.
Paying royalties to play songs on the radio would eliminate radio, but why would the RIAA want to eliminate one of their greatest assets? Major-label artists canvass the airwaves of traditional radio--again, it feels like the RIAA is attempting to stop other music from smaller labels from being heard so as to reinforce their dominance. Downloading, which we are hearing is, according to the RIAA, hurting CD sales, is now legitimate and indeed, preferred to XM radio airplay? Must we condemn new technologies until they become profitable?
The linked article (a piece of legitimate journalism) should be unbiased, the headline need not be. Perspective is important as it creates an environment in which intelligent discussion can gestate. Rather than merely squelching what you perceive as bias with a random slew of generalizations, perhaps you should understand the issue at hand:
P2P filesharing. The two stances? Copyright infringement vs. legitimate music acquisition.
Why isn't it a big deal? The smaller labels aren't complaining about filesharing...independent artists aren't complaining...it seems only major labels care. Most artists on those labels make only 7 to 8 points on CD sales anyway, so they don't profit. If music sales decline (and a number of studies have shown that P2P does not harm, and may even boost sales, as shown here, here (PDF), and here, just to name a few) then the artists really don't feel the hurt, as they profit mostly from merchandising and live shows. Both of those require fans. Thus, the more people to hear their music, the more likely they'll sell out a show, or sell more merchandise, and thus profit. This is why more and more artists are endorsing file sharing. If you understand the real issue of corporate control (Infinity, Clearchannel, and Viacom control the vast majority of radio in America, as well as venues, and where I live in Cleveland, Clearchannel owns all of the billboards), then you will notice that a bias here isn't so bad.
Arists need an audience to exist. If they are not on a major label and thus can't get airplay, how can they find an audience? (hint, the answer is filesharing).
Rash generalizations and non-sequitors do little to address the issues and, rather than bias,
are what paints Slashdot in a poor light and keeps it from being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy.
Slashdot Mirror
It's also a massive implementation of cultural relativism. America typically is extremely arrogant in international affairs, applying its standards and judgements to the rest of the world. For example, in India, the average worker lives off of $12-$13 per MONTH. This is well below what America considers to be a "poverty" level. Yet the country's population of 1.2 billion continues to grow. Not to mention cotton is free in India, 10 pounds of rice can be bought for $1, and their cultural and spiritual beliefs find no need for materialism (espoused best in America I think by Wal-Mart and other discount retailers). It's all a question of standards and culture. People in India don't think they're poor, they enjoy living. People in America, with all of their wealth and "development", are never satisfied. Intriguing. We think we have it best, but this is a nation NOT built upon ideals of liberty, but of property. Also intriguing. But we have the right to be the judge and jury over other nations?
Dibs!
"Dammit! I told you to change the 'here' to 'on their website'! They wouldn't have known it was us, you incompetent fool!"
One minor detail, though. If it will take 300 years to index knowledge currently present, then what of knowledge to be produced in the next 300 years? I mean, not even everything from the year 2004 has been indexed yet. Knowledge is infinite, therefore cannot be completely indexed--it would be best for us to interpret the "300 years" quote as a sort of geeky joke.
As an indepedent recording artist, this is an exceptionally valid point. Mastering and mixing does more to make a mix rich than throwing in a $2000 microphone. A less than stellar musician recorded using the world's greatest mic will still sound less than stellar, just as a prodigy will sound like a prodigy recorded with a Shure SM-57. With modern digital technologies studio environments can be replicated in one's own home, or in my case, dorm room. I recorded my album using a $200 drum mic set from CAD and mastered it myself in Logic Express (and note, 96khz input through my Presonus Firepod--total cost of setup: $1200) and it came out sounding better than many studios available.
It's similar to the lawsuits following the Digital Millenium Act, in which the FCC was planning to put royalty fees on internet radio. When they realised that this would eliminate internet radio as a feasible form of communications, in conjunction with the fact that airwave radio stations do not have to pay royalties, it was eliminated from the table. Paying royalties to play songs on the radio would eliminate radio, but why would the RIAA want to eliminate one of their greatest assets? Major-label artists canvass the airwaves of traditional radio--again, it feels like the RIAA is attempting to stop other music from smaller labels from being heard so as to reinforce their dominance. Downloading, which we are hearing is, according to the RIAA, hurting CD sales, is now legitimate and indeed, preferred to XM radio airplay? Must we condemn new technologies until they become profitable?
Hardly.
The linked article (a piece of legitimate journalism) should be unbiased, the headline need not be. Perspective is important as it creates an environment in which intelligent discussion can gestate. Rather than merely squelching what you perceive as bias with a random slew of generalizations, perhaps you should understand the issue at hand:
P2P filesharing. The two stances? Copyright infringement vs. legitimate music acquisition.
Why isn't it a big deal? The smaller labels aren't complaining about filesharing...independent artists aren't complaining...it seems only major labels care. Most artists on those labels make only 7 to 8 points on CD sales anyway, so they don't profit. If music sales decline (and a number of studies have shown that P2P does not harm, and may even boost sales, as shown here, here (PDF), and here, just to name a few) then the artists really don't feel the hurt, as they profit mostly from merchandising and live shows. Both of those require fans. Thus, the more people to hear their music, the more likely they'll sell out a show, or sell more merchandise, and thus profit. This is why more and more artists are endorsing file sharing. If you understand the real issue of corporate control (Infinity, Clearchannel, and Viacom control the vast majority of radio in America, as well as venues, and where I live in Cleveland, Clearchannel owns all of the billboards), then you will notice that a bias here isn't so bad.
Arists need an audience to exist. If they are not on a major label and thus can't get airplay, how can they find an audience? (hint, the answer is filesharing).
Rash generalizations and non-sequitors do little to address the issues and, rather than bias, are what paints Slashdot in a poor light and keeps it from being taken seriously as more than a niche geek site with very rigid agendas and a strict groupthink policy.